Paddy Cow wrote: » The closest I came to having a role model was thinking that MacGyver was the coolest person ever and wishing I could be as resourceful as him.
Poca Nose wrote: » Ì've never *got* the role model thing. Even as a child, I never had any celebrity role models. People in my own sphere, yes, but not high-profile people I didn't know.
Olive8585 wrote: » Not everyone is privileged enough to have family members, teachers, etc. they can look up to.
mrsbyrne wrote: » Sorry but thats just rubbish. In the poorest communities in the world there is always somebody to look up to. Certain sections of the first world population have been raised to be so shallow and image conscious that they overlook ordinary people that they come into contact with in their own community who may be admirable for working hard etc. in favour of a face in a magazine or on the TV, just because that face is pretty pale thin and wearing lipstick.
Tasden wrote: » Nobody should be idolised. Sure, appreciate the good that they do, but everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes. You're saying people only idolised peaches because she was on the TV and had a pretty face- people found her to be a role model because of the type of person/mother she appeared to be, the people in your community could very well be making the same mistakes she did behind closed doors- pretty face or not.
Paddy Cow wrote: » Nobody idolised Peaches and she was considered to be a privileged, spoilt, pain in the arse attention seeker until she had her kids. The turning point in public opinion was when she held her own with Katie Hopkins on This Morning. People could see her maturing into a young woman who took her responsibilities as a mother seriously. It's shocking now to find out that it was all a front and she was still struggling with her demons, with ultimately cost her her life. Her story is tragic, rather than inspiring.
Olive8585 wrote: » What do poor communities in the third world have to do with anything? Plenty of children in Ireland have no real role models to look up to. I used to volunteer at a kids club and there were plenty of kids where the only adults in their life were addicts, heavy drinkers, criminals, their parents were permanently on the dole, actually ridiculed them for doing homework and doing well at school in some cases in case they got ideas above their station...a lot of those kids did look up to drug dealers as role models because they had fancy cars and designer clothes...so it didn't seem all that 'out there' that a lot of them wanted to be like Kim Kardashian. Having adults in your life who make good role models is something not all children have. Sorry you find that so hard to believe.
mrsbyrne wrote: » Would it seriously never occur to you that you in your volunteer role are actually a role model for the kids in your club!? I see the kids you are talking about playing out in the road in front of our house all weekend for 12 and 14 hours a day in all weathers. F**ked out of the house in the morning to torment the neighbours for the day, fed out of the Centre deli counter and the ice cream van the littlest boy in particular will follow the postman around or any passing adult just to get a bit of adult attention. Its a pity there are not more like you and a bit more cash made available for transport and days out etc. Fair play to you for trying.
brooke 2 wrote: » There was something really weird about her that morning. She never looked at the interviewers; she kept staring at someone/something off camera and seemed to be responding to a cue whenever she launched an attack at the other woman.
Olive8585 wrote: » Maybe, but what about those who didn't come to the club, had no club in their area, etc.? All I'm saying is maybe don't be too harsh on those who look up to celebrities. It's easy for those who had good, inspirational parents, grandparents, siblings, etc. not to need famous role models, but it's not too hard to see why some people do look up to the Kim Ks of this world.
Candie wrote: » Kim K basically sells an aspirational lifestyle, I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to want to know her thoughts on world peace. As Muise says, she's not going to sought after for moral guidance.
Olive8585 wrote: » The issue is that a lot of kids don't know to look for moral guidance, that's the point. They've got their ****ty lives, they look at people like Kim K and think, she's pretty, she's got nice clothes, nice jewellery, goes on amazing holidays. That's the whole point of the idea of 'bad role model'. Kids are looking in the wrong places for the wrong things.
Hitchens wrote: » her one-year-old son was left alone with her body for up to 17 hours after she died of heroin overdose in room littered with syringes and drugs
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Did the inquest before not say the kids were out with family when she died?
Peaches Geldof Now Just A Heroin Addict Decides Media The media have confirmed that mother of two Peaches Geldof will no longer be referred to with any semblance of empathy or afforded any dignity following confirmation from an inquest into her death that she had been taking heroin. “Sometimes you idiots don’t know what you need to get from certain news stories, so we take little nuggets and feed them to you, in the vain hope you won’t choke,” read a joint statement from the editors of several prominent tabloids. Newspapers, which count hounding and stalking celebrities amongst their core values along with journalistic integrity, have chosen to lead with headlines that read ‘Peaches Geldof Was A Heroin Addict’. Variations on these headlines sit proudly alongside coverage of her initial death which saw journalists arbitrarily collate tweets which decried Geldof’s apparent drug use and then criticised the people responsible for the tweets, calling them ‘despicable’. It is not thought any of this coverage is eligible for this year’s Pulitzer Prize. Many readers of newspapers admitted they were confused by some of the media’s coverage. “I don’t understand, I thought this was supposed to be a tragic loss of young life, a loss for her young children but now the media really want me to dwell on the fact this woman suffered from a crippling addiction, I’m confused as to what they want me to think. Maybe they should just print ‘you should hate her’ o the front page instead,” confused reader Sarah Dunne remarked. “That’s the way the media works,” responded one journalist as he winked at this reporter. “It’s our responsibility to the public to allow them to pour over the sordid details of someone’s personal life. We also like to confirm for them that they should probably intensely judge at every opportunity”. “21st century media is a credit to society,” explained freelance tabloid journalist Richard Head, “we’re just trying to foster and validate a ‘valley of the squinting windows’ approach but with the technology today, from that window, you can watch in HD, live-tweet, live-judge, the works,” explained the journalist masquerading as a human being. As of yet no complaints have been made to broadcasting authorities over the coverage as the public are busy reading over the inquest details. Several tabloids are already hard at work collating all their coverage in a scrapbook for the Geldof family.
B.A._Baracus wrote: » I read this thread before... sure I even posted in it before... But I shake my head at the comments still. If this was some junkie from Ballymun who overdosed. There is no way in hell this would be 29 pages long. But yet, some how, because it is a celebrity. People care. And before someone quotes me and tries to play the "compassion" angle with hopes to jerk off while being right (this is after hours after all) ... It's sad what happened to the woman. It is. But I still can't get my head around it.
TeddyTedson wrote: » It's inevitable that people you can read about in the media will be the people whose deaths people talk about.
B.A._Baracus wrote: » I know what you mean Teddy It's just.... it's wrong to hold one up to a point of conversation and not the other. It's like the other is "ah fuck them, who cares"
TeddyTedson wrote: » Hi I understand your point, I guess it's impossible to really mourn for the death of someone we never knew existed though. Also it's not really like she was famous for the sake of being a drug addict, she was fairly well recognised journalist in her own right. The attention of somebodies death doesn't really reflect on anything other than how many people they were known to.
mrsbyrne wrote: » I read an article by a proper journalist whose son died from a heroin overdose shortly after he started ""experimenting" with the filthy muck. I'll have a Google in a while see if I can locate it. Anyhoo this journalist claims that Peaches phoned him the day his sons body was found, literally hours after he had identified him, and begged him not to disclose the fact that she had not only introduced the lad to heroin(he had dabbled in drugs already, a troubled boy) but she was with him that day. She said her dad would kill her. That was her only concern. No regrets about the dead boy, no sympathy for the bereaved family, just consumed with self pity and concern about her image. And all this while she was appearing on daytime TV doing her stepford wife routine. A manipulative selfish person with no discernible talent who seemed to have put vulnerable impressionable people under her spell. RIP.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
